Facebook through a spyglass

I don't do New Year's resolutions. I don't own a smartphone.

Which is not to say I don't need self-reappraisal, or that I am not online. I choose when and where I engage, rather than letting devices or media clichés drive my decisions.

By Stanislav Kozlovskiy (Own work)
[CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons
I recently unfolded a virtual spyglass, and took a long, hard look at Facebook, appraising the social media site and the interactions it offers. PR pros appreciate Facebook's ability to reach a broader audience. We see it as a way to help our messages go viral. 2014's ice bucket challenge wouldn't have achieved its remarkable reach without Facebook. And that's fine.

Many of Facebook's other features, however, are less admirable. Quizzes that tell you which words you used most often in your posts? Recycled click-bait stories? Re-shared posts that decry cancer and government ineptitude? Intentionally incendiary political needling meant to provoke rather than illuminate? These solve little.

(Cats? Recipes? Secret uses of hydrogen peroxide? You're on your own, and your mileage may vary.)

I'm no biblical scholar, but the Tower of Babel and Facebook have much in common. I enjoy learning of friends' successes, but I've come to realize few of these acquaintances are sharing their setbacks, too. So we get an incomplete portrait of their lives. Some of it serves up insight. Much of the rest is less illuminating.

So if I choose to contribute less to the din of Facebook, it's not a criticism of friends. It's my way of saying, "enough, already." I'll prune away posts of those who lean on pseudo-Limbaugh political labeling. I'll listen, however, if offered genuine solutions to solve problems. But I don't need to read snarkisms that throw mud upon our society's achievements, even the inconsistent ones.

Call it a resolution, if you wish. Facebook will learn less about me. But there's a good chance that I'll learn more by spending authentic time with real friends. And I won't need a spyglass to experience them.









Popular posts from this blog

Questioning the New York (Times) Athletic Club

Image
The New York Times dropped the axe on its legendary sports department in early July. Sports reporting we read in the Times henceforth will originate with The Athletic, a younger (and perhaps more agile) sportswriting website purchased by the NYT Corp.  You'll find a good assessment of the move here .  As a Times subscriber, I have automatic access to any sports reporting it produces. I won't call it "free access," however, because my ever-increasing monthly rate for a three-day Times subscription surely will include a tithe to cover the Athletic.  But ditching the Times ' sports desk and dispersing its fine sports journalists and photographers to other NYT jobs? That's a loss. Here's why: Conflict of interest: The Athletic allows its staff to report on sports gambling, while some are paid contractors of the sportsbook companies. Is there a Pete Rose-style conflict here? I'd expect so. The Times allowed no double-dipping within its sports staff. The s
Read more

Readers get the (drive) shaft in motorsports coverage

Image
In mid-August, the U.S.'s premier auto racing sport will compete at a road racing course in Watkins Glen, NY. NASCAR's brutish Cup series cars will race in this rural community Aug. 20.  May 2023, Charlotte Motor Speedway. (c) DKassnoff, 2023. But, don't expect  The New York Times  to cover NASCAR before then. The newspaper's sports section -- now outsourced to The Athletic, its sportsbook subsidiary -- hasn't covered NASCAR since July 2. That's when NASCAR's drivers competed on the rain-soaked streets of Chicago. The Times provided no coverage of their July 30 race in Richmond, VA, or any NASCAR race since early July. The Times  has focused its motorsports coverage on Formula 1 racing. These are the expensive, open-wheeled, high performance racing teams once called Grand Prix. This class of racing is controlled by another media company: John Malone's Liberty Media, which purchased Formula 1 in 2017 and returned it to profitability. Visit the Times '
Read more

Your hand's already in my pocket

Image
I use an ad blocker, and probably you do, too. Every day, even on websites where I pay a monthly subscription fee, I see a pop-up that say: "We Notice You Are Using an Ad Blocker." And they ask me to turn it off. I don't. I'm already paying for that news website's reporting. Their hands are already in my pocket. And, truth is, I don't mind digital ads that are somewhat relevant to my tastes. Show me an ad for a guitar deal or Ford car parts, and I'll probably read it. Screen shot, unnamed Gannett publication, Sept. 2018 But I don't care about Patrick Swayze's secret son. Or what forgotten 1970s actress Loni Anderson looks like today. (I was more of a Howard Hesseman /Dr. Johnny Fever fan, anyway.) When newspapers relied on print ad revenue, I'd glance at those ads -- and sometimes, I'd bite -- because those ads were for local or regional merchants. They wanted to build a relationship with me.  They didn't try
Read more